122
122
Mar 18, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 122
favorite 0
quote 0
a few days before the supreme court will look at both doma, defense of marriage act, and california's prop 8. it also puts her in line with top democrats heavily weighing 2016 bids, of course. could this mean a move for her already, eventual candidacy? chad griffin, president of human rights campaign, and joan walsh editor at large for "salon" and msnbc political analyst and laughing, and joyously involved in fascinating conversation. i watched the clintons and am a student of the clintons. bill clinton wrote a nice piece. now hillary clinton has come forward in a very well-produced video. very well done. and i listened to it all today and it's well done. here's my question. how did it happen? we were talking, the producers and i, when is she going to do it, how is she going to do it? now we know. >> i've known the clintons for a long time. i grew up in arkansas. over the last few years every chance i had when i was around people in leadership positions, i urged them to fully evolve and come out in support of marriage equality. that includes former secretary clinton. sometimes in the
a few days before the supreme court will look at both doma, defense of marriage act, and california's prop 8. it also puts her in line with top democrats heavily weighing 2016 bids, of course. could this mean a move for her already, eventual candidacy? chad griffin, president of human rights campaign, and joan walsh editor at large for "salon" and msnbc political analyst and laughing, and joyously involved in fascinating conversation. i watched the clintons and am a student of the...
124
124
Mar 18, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 124
favorite 0
quote 0
and president clinton came out striking down doma. and this comes back to the logic step-taking on marriage equality. >> thomas, it's not surprising that hillary clinton did this. but not only is the cover on the move for gay marriage in the next four or five years but also we haven't seen hillary clinton on the political stage in the last four or five years and that's is why she never communicated on the matter. consistent with barack obama when he was campaigning. of course, barack obama made his shift during the 2012 presidential campaign. now, we're seeing hillary clinton make her shift. and it does end up stoking some type of speculation that this might be all apparent to lay the ground work for a potential 2016 bid. >> from a strategy standpoint, why do you think this was done in connection with the hrc, as opposed to that website. i don't know if it's up yet, with regard to collecting e-mail, but the website that they fired up? >> it just comes after rob portman made his news and support for gay marriage. he's the republican se
and president clinton came out striking down doma. and this comes back to the logic step-taking on marriage equality. >> thomas, it's not surprising that hillary clinton did this. but not only is the cover on the move for gay marriage in the next four or five years but also we haven't seen hillary clinton on the political stage in the last four or five years and that's is why she never communicated on the matter. consistent with barack obama when he was campaigning. of course, barack...
107
107
Mar 25, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 107
favorite 0
quote 0
>> some of them only apply to doma. and understand what you mean by uniformity, but it is for the justification of the defense of marriage act. >> by uniformity -- ? >> as i a understand it, for simplicity sake, the federal government does not want to discern between different gay couples and they want to treat them equally as bad. as unmarried. >> there are lots of gay couples that which they were married and are not married and they will not get all the benefits of treatment by the federal government. in other words, in order to treat all same-sex couples as unmarried, we will treat them all the same. >> what congress said in the defense of marriage act is that -- the interest here is making sure that a married couple in texas is treated the some -- the same as a married couple in massachusetts. so that it is uniform throughout. >> there are two categories of married people, those that get in and those who do not. we are distinguishing would sheen -- distinguishing between married couples. and they want there to be un
>> some of them only apply to doma. and understand what you mean by uniformity, but it is for the justification of the defense of marriage act. >> by uniformity -- ? >> as i a understand it, for simplicity sake, the federal government does not want to discern between different gay couples and they want to treat them equally as bad. as unmarried. >> there are lots of gay couples that which they were married and are not married and they will not get all the benefits of...
241
241
Mar 25, 2013
03/13
by
CNNW
tv
eye 241
favorite 0
quote 0
doma can affect over 1,000 benefits. everything from the way married couples pay their taxes to who getting notified as next of kin in the event military personnel are injured or killed in the line of duty. the first case on the docket on tuesday is a challenge to california's proposition 8 which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. it's about equal protection and whether the fundamental right of marriage extends to same-sex couples. it's being brought by same-sex couples from california who say they have the right to be married fp there is also a very interesting question here of whether the people defending proposition 8 are able to showi case. supporters of prop x 8 has to show same-sex marriage causes them tangible harm. >> it's interesting because there seems to be such optimism on the part of gay rights advocates that they will rule in their favor. >> and the question of course is whether now is the time. there has been an internal debate in legal circles whether this is the time to actually bring cases l
doma can affect over 1,000 benefits. everything from the way married couples pay their taxes to who getting notified as next of kin in the event military personnel are injured or killed in the line of duty. the first case on the docket on tuesday is a challenge to california's proposition 8 which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. it's about equal protection and whether the fundamental right of marriage extends to same-sex couples. it's being brought by same-sex couples from...
765
765
Mar 19, 2013
03/13
by
CURRENT
tv
eye 765
favorite 0
quote 0
so what that means is that at the very least the supreme court overturns doma right? and -- which gives states, you know, the right of sort of defining what marriage is and then they hold -- at the very least the narrowest ruling upholding the strikedown of pop situation 8, meaning that california couples could continue to be married or start again, but it doesn't necessarily -- >> bill: apply to the entire country. >> and then there is this other argument which is an 8-state solution, whichever state like california, basically giving a bunch of benefits with the exception of the wore marriage then they would have to adopt it, because there's no reason why -- the state can't have an interest in denying the word marriage if it is giving all of the benefits of marriage. and then there is the constitutional right to marriage nationwide. but what he was saying was at the very least they overturn doma and give a narrow ruling upholding the strikedown of prop 8. he thought there was zero chance that they did anything negative to hurt same-sex marriage. >> bill: so rob portm
so what that means is that at the very least the supreme court overturns doma right? and -- which gives states, you know, the right of sort of defining what marriage is and then they hold -- at the very least the narrowest ruling upholding the strikedown of pop situation 8, meaning that california couples could continue to be married or start again, but it doesn't necessarily -- >> bill: apply to the entire country. >> and then there is this other argument which is an 8-state...
156
156
Mar 21, 2013
03/13
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 156
favorite 0
quote 0
doma is definitely unconstitutional. but don't take my word for it. you have heard me say this, i'm sure, around 2005 the republicans were in the majority passed legislation specifically related to doma which had, as you know, passed some years before in the 1990's. they came up a specific bill relating to doma that stripped he right of judicial review. the courts should not have right of judicial review, and therefore they were passing this bill to strip the courts of judicial review. why would they do that if they thought they had a constitutional bill? specifically related to doma. i feel pretty confident about what will happen there. but you never know. you never know. i think i only have time for one more question. two questions then. quickly. i'll answer shorter. >> seems like it's going to be the next big fight coming up, the speaker said hins principal of reforms in cuts, wonder if you're going to stand by -- whether you would be open to another no budget, no pay, where you do a balanced budget amendment vote or something like that. that's wha
doma is definitely unconstitutional. but don't take my word for it. you have heard me say this, i'm sure, around 2005 the republicans were in the majority passed legislation specifically related to doma which had, as you know, passed some years before in the 1990's. they came up a specific bill relating to doma that stripped he right of judicial review. the courts should not have right of judicial review, and therefore they were passing this bill to strip the courts of judicial review. why...
125
125
Mar 20, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 125
favorite 0
quote 0
but what we doma maintain, and think the president is the first do so, is that israel has the rate to independently defend itself against any threat, including the iranian threat. >> i think the only thing i would add is that our intelligence cooperation on this issue, the consultation between our militaries, intelligence, is unprecedented. and there is not a lot of light, a lot of daylight, between our k our countries' assessments in terms of where iran is right now. i think what bb alluded to, which is absolutely correct, is each country has it make its own decisions when it comes to the awesome decision to engage in any kind of military action. and that israel is differently situated than the united states. and i would not expect that the prime minister would make a decision about his country's security and defer that to any other country. any more than the united states would defer our decisions about what was important for our national security. i have shared that with bb, is i said to the entire world, and said to the iranian people and iranian leaders, that i think there is tim
but what we doma maintain, and think the president is the first do so, is that israel has the rate to independently defend itself against any threat, including the iranian threat. >> i think the only thing i would add is that our intelligence cooperation on this issue, the consultation between our militaries, intelligence, is unprecedented. and there is not a lot of light, a lot of daylight, between our k our countries' assessments in terms of where iran is right now. i think what bb...
134
134
Mar 20, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 134
favorite 0
quote 0
gop and the bipartisan legal counsel to continue this fight, $3 million of taxpayer money to oppose doma? >> well, look, this is a position of our party. but, you know, our point in the report, luke, is that, you know, when i was asked at the national press club i think one of the reporters asked me and he said are you still going to fund, you know, rob portman? my response is, of course we're going to help rob portman. he's a good conservative republican. my appointment, luke, i'm not going to get into this sort of back and forth with leadership, but what i will tell you is i think our party needs to have the attitude that if i disagree with you on one issue, it doesn't mean that you're a lousy republican. it means that you're a good republican. it means we agree on most issues and we need to unite our party. we can't build our party if we're going to cut out certain pieces and certain parts that we may not agree on 100% on but we have to grow. so we have to grow through additional -- >> mr. chairman, you're a relatively young man, 41 years old. do you think the republican party -- >> i
gop and the bipartisan legal counsel to continue this fight, $3 million of taxpayer money to oppose doma? >> well, look, this is a position of our party. but, you know, our point in the report, luke, is that, you know, when i was asked at the national press club i think one of the reporters asked me and he said are you still going to fund, you know, rob portman? my response is, of course we're going to help rob portman. he's a good conservative republican. my appointment, luke, i'm not...
139
139
Mar 23, 2013
03/13
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 139
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> if the high court decides on doma, what does that mean for opponents for same-sex marriage? is that a settled issue, but is it like obama care and we'll still be talking about it years from now? >> we'll still be talking about it. let's let the states decide one at a time and that's probably the best way. public opinion is definitely shifting. maybe ten years from now, they all will be there. >> if the states decide, then we have patch work of laws where you have folks who can get married in california, but if they move to nebraska, are they recognized there? whatever your politics, there needs to be a settled universal law. >> for a while, gay rights advocates have argued that this shouldn't be settled in the courts, because he wanted a victory of public opinion. he wanted states one by one to have their people come over to the right side of the issue in their view. but i think that even andrew sullivan have come to the point where they say the majority of americans support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it are becoming less and less politically relevant. i think th
. >> if the high court decides on doma, what does that mean for opponents for same-sex marriage? is that a settled issue, but is it like obama care and we'll still be talking about it years from now? >> we'll still be talking about it. let's let the states decide one at a time and that's probably the best way. public opinion is definitely shifting. maybe ten years from now, they all will be there. >> if the states decide, then we have patch work of laws where you have folks...